University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
School of Social Work
Course:
SOWO 810, Evaluation of Social Interventions
Spring 2009, Mondays 9:00 – 11:50 A.M., Room 102
Professor:
Gary S. Cuddeback, Ph.D., M.S.W., M.P.H.
Assistant Professor, School of Social Work
Faculty Research Fellow, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
CB#3550, 325 Pittsboro Street, Suite #420B
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590
Phone: SOWO (919) 962-4363, SHEPS (919) 966-0995
gcuddeba@email.unc.edu or cuddeback@mail.schsr.unc.edu
Office Hours: Before and after class and by appointment
Course Description and Objectives: Students will develop knowledge of the purposes of research and
evaluation and the approaches and methodologies necessary to evaluate social work interventions. Upon
completion of this course students will be able to demonstrate:
1. Skill in developing and implementing social intervention evaluations that promote evidence-based
social work practice and policy;
2. Skill in evaluating social intervention research and applying findings to social work practice and policy;
3. Skill in qualitative and quantitative evaluation design, measurement, data analysis, and knowledge
dissemination;
4. Knowledge of the practical, political, and economic issues related to the evaluation of social
interventions;
5. Skill in designing social intervention research that is sensitive to racial, gender, social, economic, and
other issues of difference; and
6. Ability to apply social work ethics and values to the evaluation of social interventions.
Expanded Course Description: Social workers, whether they are front-line practitioners, program managers,
administrators or policymakers, routinely face complex human situations involving consumers or constituents
who come from diverse backgrounds. The social interventions social workers have at their disposal vary in
their degree of effectiveness with any given individual, family, group, organization or community. In order to
provide the most effective social work programs, policies and interventions, social workers must be able to
determine if what they are doing is beneficial to the individuals, families, groups, organizations, or communities
they serve.
To this end, and building on the knowledge gained in the foundation course SOWO 510, Introduction to
Research Methodology, this course provides a results-based accountability framework so students may gain:
(a) skills in accessing and assessing research literature as a foundation for evidence-based practice, (b)
knowledge of evaluation methodologies available to implement results-based evaluation, and (c) the ability to
work within a results-based accountability framework in their social work practice.
Required Texts:
Hatry, H., van Houten, T., Plantz, M. C., & Greenway, M. T. (1996) Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical
Approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.
Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., Padgett, D. K., & Logan, T. K. (2006). Program Evaluation: An Introduction (4th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.
SOWO 810 – Fall 2008 - Cuddeback
The required texts are available in the Health Sciences bookstore. Supplemental readings are available in a
course folder located in the SOSW library on the 5th floor and/or on-line (noted below). Articles noted to be online are available through the UNC Library electronic databases.
Policy on Incomplete or Late Assignments: Students must notify the instructor at least 24 hours before an
assignment is due if an assignment is going to be turned in late. Extensions may be given at the instructor’s
discretion for extenuating circumstances. Students will lose five points for each 24-hour period beyond the due
date and time (including weekends) for unexcused late assignments.
Policy on Academic Dishonesty: Academic dishonesty is contrary to the ethics of the social work profession,
unfair to other students, and will not be tolerated in any form.
Policy on Accommodations for Students with Disabilities: Students with disabilities that affect their
participation in the course and who wish to have special accommodations should contact the University’s
Disabilities Services and provide documentation of their disability. Disabilities Services will notify the instructor
that the student has a documented disability and may require accommodations. Students should discuss the
specific accommodations they require (e.g. changes in instructional format, examination format) directly with
the instructor.
Course Requirements
Quizzes: Each week at the beginning of class a short quiz covering material from the previous week will be
given. Each quiz will be discussed after its completion and returned after grades are recorded. Quiz grades will
be averaged and this final quiz grade will count for 25% of the total grade. The lowest quiz grade will be
dropped. These quizzes will provide ongoing feedback concerning knowledge acquisition and will provide the
information necessary to take corrective measures, by both the professor and students, to ensure that
adequate learning has occurred.
Midterm and Final Exams: The midterm and final exams will be worth 25% each. The final exam will not be
cumulative. Exams will consist of true/false, multiple choice, short answer, and essay questions. These exams
will make up 50% of the total grade.
Evaluation Project: An evaluation project related to each student’s field placement or specific interests will be
the primary written assignment for this course. Students can choose one of two options: (1) students can
conduct a real evaluation in the field (i.e., design an evaluation and collect real data), or (2) students can
design an evaluation and analyze fictitious data. Students who elect to conduct evaluations in the field should
meet with their professor as soon as possible. The project will make up 25% of the total grade.
The project will be completed in three parts: (1) Introduction and Literature Review; (2) Methods; and (3)
Results, Discussion and Conclusion. See the course outline below for due dates for each of these sections.
The first (Introduction and Literature Review) and second (Methods) parst of the project can be resubmitted for
re-grading one time. In addition, drafts of all written assignments can be submitted for feedback as early and
often as needed. Each part will be graded according to the following criteria and a number grade from 0 – 100
will be assigned:





Mechanics (grammar, spelling, style, typing)
Organization
Logic
Content
Ability to summarize and draw conclusions
2
SOWO 810 – Fall 2008 - Cuddeback
Format for Written Work: APA format should be used for all written assignments. Students should refer to
the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.) for information on APA format. In
addition, students should refer to the School of Social Work Style Guide, pages 26 – 32, for guidelines on how
to cite work properly and avoid plagiarism.
Evaluation and Grading:
Evaluation Project
Midterm Exam
Quiz Average
Final Exam
25%
25%
25%
25%
100%
Points
94 – 100
80 – 93
70 – 79
< 69
Grade
H
P
L
F
Course Outline and Readings
January 12
Course Overview and Syllabus
Evaluation of Social Interventions
Foundations for Accountable Practice
Hatry et al., pp 1-9 and Royse et al. Chapter 1-2
Supplemental Readings:
Chronis, A. M., Jones, H. A., & Raggi, V. L. (2006). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children
and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 486502. [on line]
Collins, P., Kayser, K., & Tourse, R. C. (1994). Bridging the gaps: an interdependent model for educating
accountable practitioners. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(2), 241-251. [course folder - SOSW
library]
Gambrill, E. (2001). Social work: an authority-based profession. Research on Social Work Practice,
11(2), 166-175. [course folder - SOSW library]
Hahn, R. A., Bilukha, O., Lowy, J., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M. T., Liberman, A., Moscicki, E., Snyder, S.,
Tuma, F., Corso, P., & Schofield, A. (2005). The effectiveness of therapeutic foster care for the
prevention of violence: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S1), 7290. [on line AND course folder - SOSW library]
Mancini, J. A., Marek, L. I., Byrne, R. A. W., & Huebner, A. J. (2004). Community-based program
research: context, program readiness, and evaluation usefulness. Journal of Community Practice,
12(1/2), 7 – 21. [on line]
Miller, W. R., Sorenson, J. L., Selzer, J. A., & Brigham, G. S. (2006). Disseminating evidence-based
practices in substance abuse treatment: a review with suggestions. Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment, 31, 25 – 39. [on line]
Millstein, K. H., Dare-Winters, K., & Sullivan, S. (1994). The power of silence: ethical dilemmas of
informed consent in practice evaluation. Clinical Social Work Journal, 22, 317-329. [course folder SOSW library]
Molin, R., & Palmer, S. (2005). Consent and participation: ethical issues in the treatment of children in
out-of-home care. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(1), 152-157. [on line AND course folder SOSW library]
National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (2005). Guide for child welfare administrators
on evidence-based practice. http://www.aphas.org.
Racusin, R., Maerlender, A. C., Sengupta, A., Isquith, P. K., & Strauss, M. B. (2005). Psychosocial
treatment of children in foster care: a review. Community Mental Health Journal, 41(2), 199 – 221.
[on line]
Rosen, A. (2003). Evidence-based social work practice: challenges and promise. Social Work Research,
27(4), 197-208. [on line AND course folder – SOSW library]
Schoenwald, S. K., Letourneau, E. J., & Halliday-Boykins, C. (2005). Predicting therapist adherence to a
transported family-based treatment for youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
34(4), 658 – 670. [on line]
Staudt, M. (1997). Pseudoissues in practice evaluation: impediments to responsible practice. Social
Work, 42(1), 99-106. [course folder - SOSW library]
Wakefield, J. C., & Kirk, S. A. (1996). Unscientific thinking about scientific practice: evaluating the
3
SOWO 810 – Fall 2008 - Cuddeback
scientist-practitioner model. Social Work Research, 20(2), 83-95. [course folder - SOSW library]
Wiehe, S. E., Garrison, M. M., Christakis, D. A., Ebel, B. E., & Rivara, F. P. (2005). A systematic review
of school-based smoking prevention trials with long-term follow-up. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36,
162-169. [on line AND course folder - SOSW library]
Wiesz, J. R., & Jensen, P. S. (2001). Child and adolescent psychotherapy in research and practice
contexts: review of the evidence and suggestions for improving the field. European Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 1/12-1/18. [on line AND course folder - SOSW library]
January 26
Quiz 1
Discussion – Assigned Readings
Evidence-based Practices
In-class Assignment
Introduction and Literature Review Sections of Projects
February 2
Quiz 2
Identifying Outcomes
Developing Research Questions and Hypotheses
Hatry et al. pp. 11-80 and Royse et al. Chapter 3
Supplemental Readings:
Chen, H., & Marks, M. (1998). Assessing the needs of inner city youth: beyond needs identification and
prioritization. Children and Youth Services Review, 20(9/10), 819-838. [course folder - SOSW
library]
Savaya, R., & Waysman, M. (2005). The logic model: a tool for incorporating theory in development and
evaluation of programs. Administration in Social Work, 29(2), 85 – 103. [on line]
Stewart, D., Law, M., Russell, D., & Hanna, S. (2004). Evaluating children’s rehabilitation services: an
application of a programme logic model. Child: Care, Health & Development, 30(5), 453-462. [on line
AND course folder - SOSW library]
February 9
Quiz 3
Measurement Instruments
Hatry et al. pp. 81-112, 147-163 and Royse et al. Chapters 11, 12
Supplemental Readings:
Chorpita, B. F., Moffitt, C. E., & Gray, J. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Revised Child Anxiety
and Depression Scale in a clinical sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 309 – 322. [on line
AND SOSW library]
Cuddeback, G. S., Buehler, C., Orme, J. G., & Le Prohn, N. (2007). Measuring foster parent potential: the
psychometric properties of the Casey Foster Applicant Inventory – Worker Version (CFAI-W).
Research in Social Work Practice, 17(1), 93-109. [on line]
Orme, J. G., Cuddeback, G. S., Buehler, C., & Le Prohn, N. S. (2007). Measuring foster parent potential:
Casey Foster Parent Inventory – Applicant Version (CFAI-A). Research in Social Work Practice,
17(1), 77-92. [on line]
Rowley, A. A., Roesch, S. C., Jurica, B. J., & Vaughn, A. A. (2005). Developing and validating a stress
appraisal measure for minority adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 547-557. [on line AND
course folder - SOSW library]
February 16
Quiz 4
Sampling
Internal and External Validity
Royse et al. pp. 184-185, pp. 254-258
February 23
Quiz 5
Client Satisfaction Surveys
Qualitative Research
Royse et al. Chapters 4, 8
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW SECTIONS OF PAPER DUE!
Supplemental Readings:
Altshuler, S. J. (1999). Children in kinship foster care speak out: “We think we’re doing fine.” Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 16(3), 215-235. [course folder - SOSW library]
Buehler, C., Cox, M. E., & Cuddeback, G. (2003). Foster parent’s perceptions of factors that promote or
4
SOWO 810 – Fall 2008 - Cuddeback
inhibit successful fostering. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 2(1), 61-84. [course
folder – SOSW library]
Coakley, T. M., Cuddeback, G. S., Buehler, C., & Cox, M. E. (2007). Kinship foster parents' perceptions
of factors that promote or inhibit successful fostering. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(1),
92-109. [on line]
Shamai, M. (2003). Therapeutic effects of qualitative research: reconstructing the experience of
treatment as a by-product of qualitative evaluation. Social Service Review, 77(3), 455 – 467. [on line]
March 2
Midterm Exam
March 16
Research and Evaluation Designs
Royse et al. Chapters 6, 9
Supplemental Readings:
Bernstein, G. A., Layne, A. E., Egan, E. A., & Tennison, D. M. (2005). School-based interventions for
anxious children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(11), 1118
– 1127. [on line]
Broner, N., Lattimore, P. K., Cowell, A. J., & Schlenger, W. E. (2004). Effects on diversion on adults with
co-occurring mental illness and substance use: outcomes from a national multi-site study. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 22, 519-541. [on line AND course folder - SOSW library]
Clarke, G. N., Herinckx, H. A., Kinney, R. F., Paulson, R. I., Cutler, D. L., Lewis, K., & Oxman, E. (2000).
Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with
serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized controlled trail of two ACT
programs vs. usual care. Mental Health Services Research, 2(3), 155-164. [on line AND in course
folder - SOSW library]
Finkelstein, N., Rechberger, E., Russell, L. A., VanDeMark, N. R., Noether, C. D., O’Keefe, M. O., Gould,
K., Mockus, S., & Rael, M. Building resilience in children of mothers who have co-occurring disorders
and histories of violence. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 32(2), 141-254. [on line
AND course folder - SOSW library]
Randall, E. (2001). Existential therapy of panic disorder: a single-system study. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 29(3), 259-267. [on-line AND course folder - SOSW library]
Temple, S., & Ho, B. (2005). Cognitive therapy for persistent psychosis in schizophrenia: a casecontrolled clinical trial. Schizophrenia Research, 75, 195-199. [on line AND course folder - SOSW
library]
Ventura, L. A., Cassell, C. A., Jacoby, J. E., & Huang, B. (1998). Case management and recidivism of
mentally ill persons released from jail. Psychiatric Services, 49(10), 1330-1337. [on line AND course
folder - SOSW library]
Zetlin, A. G., Weinberg, L. A., & Kimm, C. (2005). Helping social workers address the educational needs
of foster children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 811-823. [on line AND course folder - SOSW library]
March 23
Quiz 6
Data Analysis
Hatry et al. pp. 113-124 and Royse et al. Chapter 13
Supplemental Readings:
Barrett, M. D., & Wolfer, T. A. (2001). Reducing anxiety through a structured writing intervention: a singlesystem evaluation. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82(4), 355362. [course folder - SOSW library]
Cather, C., Penn, D., Otto, M. W., Yovel, I., Mueser, K. T., & Goff, D. C. (2005). A pilot study of functional
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (fCBT) for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 74, 201-209. [on
line AND course folder - SOSW library]
Cohen, J. A., Mannarino, A. P., & Knudsen, K. (2005). Treating sexually abused children: 1 year followup of a randomized controlled trial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 135-145. [on line AND course folder SOSW library]
Electronic Statistics Textbook: http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html
Ferguson, K. L., & Rodway, M. R. (1994). Cognitive behavioral treatment of perfectionism: initial
evaluation studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 4(3), 283-308. [course folder - SOSW library]
Hourihan, F., & Hoban, D. (2004). Learning, enjoying, growing, support model: an innovative
collaborative approach to the prevention of conduct disorder in preschoolers in hard to reach rural
families. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 12, 269-276. [on line AND course folder – SOSW library]
Reed, V. A., Jernstedt, G. C., Hawley, J. K., Reber, E. S., & DuBois, C. A. (2005). Effects of a smallscale, very short-term service-learning experience on college students. Journal of Adolescence, 28,
5
SOWO 810 – Fall 2008 - Cuddeback
359-368. [on line AND course folder - SOSW library]
Secret, M., & Bloom, M. (1994). Evaluating a self-help approach to helping a phobic child: a profile
analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 4(3), 338-348. [course folder - SOSW library]
Slonim-Nevo, V., & Vosler, N. R. (1991). The use of single-system design with systemic brief problemsolving therapy. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 72(1), 38-44.
[course folder - SOSW library]
Statistical Computing: <http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/>
March 30
Quiz 7
Research and Evaluation Designs and Data Analysis - revisited
April 6
Quiz 8-9
Research and Evaluation Designs and Data Analysis – revisited
April 13
Data Analysis – Lab (Quizzes 10-11)
METHODS SECTION OF PAPER DUE!
April 20
Data Analysis Continued - Lab
April 27
Formative and Process Evaluations
Cost Analysis and Cost Effectiveness Designs
Royse et al.: Chapters 5, 10
Supplemental Readings:
Barth, R. P., Lee, C. K., Wildfire, J., & Guo, S. (2006). A comparison of the governmental costs of longterm foster care and adoption. Social Service Review, 80(1), 127-158. [on line]
DeSena, A. D., Murphy, R. A., Douglas-Palumberi, H., Blau, G., Kelly, B., Horwitz, S. M., & Kaufman, J.
(2005). SAFE Homes: is it worth the cost: an evaluation of a group home permanency planning
program for children who first enter out-of-home care. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 627 – 643. [on line]
Ettner, S. L., Huang, D., Evans, E., Ash, D. R., Hardy, H., Jourabchi, M., & Hser, Y-I. (2005). Benefit-cost
in the California treatment outcome project: does substance abuse treatment “Pay for Itself”? Health
Services Research, 41(1) 192 – 213. [on line]
Foster, E. M., & Holden, E. W. (2002). Benefit-cost analyses of the child welfare demonstration projects:
understanding the resource implications of the IV-E waivers. Children and Youth Services Review,
24(6/7), 431-453. [on line]
Helitzer, D., Yoon, S., Wallerstein, N., & Garcia-Velarde, L. (2000). The role of process evaluation in the
training of facilitators for an adolescent health education program. Journal of School Health, 70(4),
141 – 147. [on line]
Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., & Brondino, M. J. (1999). Multisystemic treatment of substance abusing
and dependent delinquents: outcomes, treatment fidelity and transportability. Mental Health Services
Research, 1(3), 171-184. [on line AND course folder - SOSW library]
McHugo, G. J., Drake, R. E., Teague, G. B., & Xie, H. (1999). Fidelity to assertive community treatment
and client outcomes in the New Hampshire Dual Disorders Study. Psychiatric Services, 50(6), 818824. [on line]
Rosenheck, R. (2000). Cost-effectiveness of service for mentally ill homeless people: the application of
research to policy and practice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(10), 1563 – 1570. [on line]
Schweinhart, L. J. (2003). Benefits, costs, and explanation of the High/Scope Perry Preschool program.
Paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, Florida
http://www.highscope.org/research/PerryProject/Perry-SRCD-2003.pdf. [View slides using
PowerPoint: http://www.highscope.org/research/PerryProject/perrymain.htm]
Story, M., Lytle, L. A., Birnbau, A. S., & Perry, C. L. (2002). Peer-led, school-based nutrition education for
young adolescents: feasibility and process evaluation of the TEENS Study. Journal of School Health,
72(3), 121 – 127. [on line]
Valois, R. F., & Hoyle, T. B. (2000). Formative evaluation results from the Mariner Project: a coordinated
school health pilot program. Journal of School Health, 70(3), 95 – 103. [on line]
May 4
Final Exam
RESULTS, DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION SECTIONS OF PAPER DUE!
6